version 3.0

[bison.git] / TODO

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index d2e457c976607977dde5a5c147bb0fe2fa49fe51..09fce0896dc52bd9163d3c72655c7862898567b9 100644 (file)
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -1,27 +1,4 @@
 * Short term
-** Laxism in Bison invocation arguments:
-The flag_argmatch functions were meant to be generic. The introduction of
--Werror= in generic code is a bit troublesome, and generates weird
-behaviour. Because seeing "error=" causes Bison to match the subsequent
-categories with a generic procedure, but on a very specific variable, the
-following commands are legal, and equivalent:
-
-$ bison -Werror=yacc            # OK
-$ bison --warnings=error=yacc   # err, looks very weird?
-$ bison -rerror=itemsets        # this value of 'report' enum has a value
-                                # of '1 << 1', just like Wyacc
-$ bison --report=error=itemsets # (same)
-$ bison -ferror=caret           # (same)
-$ bison --feature=error=caret   # (same)
-
-Basically, writing -rerror={THINGS} or -ferror={FEATURE} is not prohibited,
-and results in UB.
-
-I don't think there is any reason for the user to expect anything out of
-these options (this implementation-driven behavior is not documented of
-course, as it isn't exactly a feature), so this bug isn't critical but
-should be addressed some day nonetheless.
-
 ** Graphviz display code thoughts
 The code for the --graph option is over two files: print_graph, and
 graphviz. This is because Bison used to also produce VCG graphs, but since
@@ -199,13 +176,13 @@ part of $default.  Should we make the two reductions explicit, or just
 keep $default?  See the following point.
 
 ** Disabled Reductions
-See `tests/conflicts.at (Defaulted Conflicted Reduction)', and decide
+See 'tests/conflicts.at (Defaulted Conflicted Reduction)', and decide
 what we want to do.
 
 ** Documentation
 Extend with error productions.  The hard part will probably be finding
 the right rule so that a single state does not exhibit too many yet
-undocumented ``features''.  Maybe an empty action ought to be
+undocumented ''features''.  Maybe an empty action ought to be
 presented too.  Shall we try to make a single grammar with all these
 features, or should we have several very small grammars?
 
@@ -266,9 +243,9 @@ into
         exp: exp '+' exp | exp '&' exp;
 
 when there are no actions.  This can significantly speed up some
-grammars.  I can't find the papers.  In particular the book `LR
+grammars.  I can't find the papers.  In particular the book 'LR
 parsing: Theory and Practice' is impossible to find, but according to
-`Parsing Techniques: a Practical Guide', it includes information about
+'Parsing Techniques: a Practical Guide', it includes information about
 this issue.  Does anybody have it?